Thank you, but you really missed my point about a mile and a half.
Then perhaps you could expound on 'your point'.
Going full-frame
- Thread starter traceyjj
- Start date
Then perhaps you could expound on 'your point'.
I'm really not in the mood right now to explain self explanatory things.
Must not be very 'self-explanatory' then.
Obviously not to you.
I'll wait to be educated.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
If you're saying, "FX is 'better' than DX in the same way a 24-70mm f/2.8 is 'better' than a 24-70mm f/4", I would say the comparison is not necessarily accurate. There are far too many other considerations besides pixel size and density when comparing the two. It's an analogy, but not a good one.
If that's not what you're saying then what you did say in no way "self explanatory".
If that's not what you're saying then what you did say in no way "self explanatory".
Yes ,that is exactly what I was saying. Thank you Jake.
See Sparky? That wasn't too hard.
You know that little splinter that you get under your fingernails sometimes, and you keep picking at it and try to remove it with a tweezer, and it just wont come out no matter what you do?
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Who said it wasn't hard?! I had to twist my brain into a pretzel to come up with something that might get you two to stop bickering!!
Scott Ramsey
Senior Member
Replying to the original question before these guys got side tracked, I too struggled with that question and ended up with the D610. I also use the 28-300mm a good bit and have no issues. It came down mostly to file size and back up capacity on my computer. I have had great results with my 610 and will use the money I saved on glass.
Who said it wasn't hard?! I had to twist my brain into a pretzel to come up with something that might get you two to stop bickering!!
So, a moron asking to get educated by a self-evident member is 'bickering'? I'll try to remember that. After all, every little bit helps.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
too early for the nausea....going back to sleep (maybe)....will have to think about it a while!
Blacktop and Jake, please walk away from this comment and don't let it get to you. Sparky doesn't know when to quit and always has to have the last word. A person's character shows what type of a person he/she is, and both of you are too well-respected to lower yourselves to his level.
Blacktop, an FX camera captures the FOV of a traditional 35mm camera. Asking if one is better than the other is simply subjective--someone else's opinion might be different than mine. Does that make my opinion more or less valuable than another person's opinion? Both FX and DX have their places in the camera world.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Dude, I've got your back here. It took me 15 minutes of twisting my head around the aperture comment to come up with what might have been meant, so I wasn't surprised that you (or anyone else) didn't get it from the OP. What surprised me was blacktop's unwillingness to explain himself, leading to your tete-a-tete. But hey, we all have our moments. I was just trying to get him to admit what the hell he was talking about.
(Posted by Daisy The Rottweiler.)
Yes Blacktop, you are certainly correct in your analogy. The larger sensor of an FX camera captures more light then the smaller sensor of a DX camera.
Just as a larger maximum aperture lens , captures more light as apposed to a smaller maximum aperture lens .
There for both an FX camera, and a larger maximum aperture lens will be more useful in low light situations, making your analogy correct and very easy to understand.
